:  This  book  is  due  at  the  LOUIS  R.  WILSON  LIBRARY  on  the 
last  date  stamped  under  "Date  Due."  If  not  on  hold  it  may  be 
renewed  by  bringing  it  to  the  library. 


DATE  OVT 
DUE  RET 

DATE 

DUE  KtT 

1  1996 

* 

.  ZQI1 

m 

:  .    a   O  fill 

i  4  ah1 

— t  <*.  - 

—    JUN  1 

*i  onu 
1  ZUI! 

f 

1 


THE  LIBRARY  OF  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF 
NORTH  CAROLINA 


ENDOWED  BY  THE 
DIALECTIC  AND  PHILANTHROPIC 
SOCIETIES 


F  231 
.R8U 
PU3 


""'^SITY  OF  N.C.  AT  CHAPEL  HILL 


0001840224 


/"  2  5  $|  3/ 


.V7  "T> 


William  Henry  Ruffner:  Reconstruction 
Statesman  of  Virginia 


By  C.  CHILTON  PEARSON 

Wake  Forest  College 


(Reprinted  from  The  South  Atlantic  Quarterly,  Vol.  XX,  Nos.  1  and  2 
January  and  April,  1921) 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2014 


https://archive.org/details/williamhenryruffOOpear 


William  Henry  Ruffner:  Reconstruction 
Statesman  of  Virginia 

C.  Chilton  Pearson 

Wake  Forest  College 
I 

The  year  1920  marked  the  semi-centennial  of  the  opening 
of  the  public  schools  in  Virginia  under  the  administration  of 
William  Henry  Ruffner.  In  1870  as  now  the  problems  of  the 
day  were  problems  of  reconstruction.  Since  1861  Virginia 
had  seen  both  conquest  and  revolution.  The  new  constitution 
and  the  special  covenant  under  which  the  state  had  just  re- 
turned to  the  Union  constituted  in  effect  a  treaty,  the  intent 
of  which  was  to  render  secure  the  results  of  the  conquest  and 
to  fortify  the  processes  of  the  revolution.1  Most  significant 
among  the  treaty's  terms,  to  which  effect  had  to  be  given 
through  laws,  institutions  and  customs,  were  the  provisions 
for  public  education  and  the  plan  for  protecting  and  develop- 
ing an  inferior  race  through  education  and  suffrage.  The 
story  of  the  working  of  the  suffrage  provision  is  one  of  dismal 
failure.  That  the  educational  experiment  proved  a  blessing 
to  both  races  was  due  primarily  to  William  Henry  Ruffner, 
the  "Horace  Mann  of  the  South." 

Of  direct  and  conscious  preparation  for  his  educational 
work  Mr.  Ruffner  had  practically  none.  He  was  born  Feb- 
ruary 11,  1824,  in  Lexington,  Virginia.  From  Washington 
College  he  received  the  B.A.  degree  in  1842  and  the  M.A.  in 
1844.  After  courses  in  theology  at  Union  Seminary,  Va.,  and 
Princeton  and  a  period  of  two  years  as  chaplain  and  student 
at  the  University  of  Virginia,  he  settled  in  1851  as  pastor  of 
the  Seventh  Presbyterian  Church  of  Philadelphia.  Compelled 
to  resign  in  1853,  the  next  sixteen  years  found  him  farming 
and  preaching,  rather  irregularly,  to  the  small  churches  of  his 
native  valley.   If  to  this  account  we  add  his  marriage  to  Har- 

1  Cf.  Pearson,  Readjuster  Movement  in  Virginia,  ch.  2.  The  bibliography  of 
this  book  includes  the  bibliography  for  this  paper.  Particular  reference,  however, 
should  be  made  to  the  voluminous  collection  of  papers  left  by  Mr.  Ruffner  in  the 
hands  of  his  son-in-law,  Mr.  R.  F.  Campbell,  of  Asheville,  N.  C,  who  very  kindly 
placed  them  at  my  disposal.  Unless  otherwise  indicated  this  study  is  based  on 
these  papers  or  on  Mr.  Ruffner's  Annual  Reports. 


4 


The  South  Atlantic  Quarterly 


riet  Gray,  of  Rockingham,  the  outstanding  events  of  his  first 
forty-five  years  have  been  chronicled. 

None  the  less,  during  these  years  Ruffner  was  being  fitted 
well  for  what  was  to  be  his  great  task.  Heredity  and  early  en- 
vironment were  favorable.  Into  the  upper  Valley  of  Virginia,  the 
nation's  first  ''melting  pot,"  had  come  the  westward  moving 
English  pioneers  and  southward-bound  Scotch-Irish,  along 
with  a  sprinkling  of  Germans.  Some  of  them  had  passed  on, 
but  others  had  remained  and  mingled,  generation  after  genera- 
tion, with  varying  predominance  of  strain.  Limestone  water 
and  bracing  mountain  air  had  made  them  tall,  large  limbed, 
vigorous.  Of  the  best  type  were  the  Ruffners,  all  large  men, 
German  in  the  origin  of  their  name,"  but  Scotch-Irish  in  their 
intellectual  independence,  and  English  in  their  practical  com- 
mon sense.  These  characteristics  were,  accordingly,  William 
Henry  Ruffner's  birthright. 

Out  of  the  Scotch-Irish  instinct  for  education  had  early 
sprung  Augusta  Academy,  built  solidly  out  of  the  abundant  na- 
tive rock.  With  the  Revolution  it  had  become  Liberty  Acad- 
emy, and  the  village  around,  Lexington.  After  a  small  gift 
from  the  admired  Father  of  his  Country,  Liberty  Academy 
became  Washington  College.  But  regardless  of  passing  influ- 
ences, the  school  had  at  all  times  been  primarily  the  training 
ground  for  young  Presbyterians  of  moderate  means  and  good 
family.  On  its  faculty  was  Henry  Ruffner,  the  father  of 
William  Henry;  later  he  became  its  president.  Close  by  was 
another  educational  institution  very  significant  for  him  who 
would  understand  the  politics  of  our  middle  period,  the  Vir- 
ginia Military  Institute.  Thus  Lexington  was  a  cultural  cen- 
ter. In  Franklin  Hall  its  most  eminent  citizens  read  papers 
and  debated  to  a  decision  the  burning  issues  of  the  day;  and 
since  these  were  men  of  strong  convictions  and  of  wide  and 
clannish  connections  in  both  the  aristocratic  east  and  the  demo- 
cratic west,  their  discussions  and  decisions  were  often  of  prac- 
tical political  consequence.  In  this  work  Henry  Ruffner  was 
a  leader,  contributing  a  very  famous  pamphlet  on  slavery  and 
fathering  a  significant  movement  for  public  education.  And 
the  young  Ruffner,  busy  as  he  was  with  classical  studies  and 
enticed  into  imitation  of  his  father's  occasional  verses,  re- 


Reconstruction  Statesman  of  Virginia  5 

sponded  to  this  stimulus  to  thought  on  social  questions.  Of  his 
first  three  public  efforts,  one  dealt  with  the  importance  of  edu- 
cation, one  with  slavery,  and  one  with  the  settlement  of  inter- 
national disputes  through  a  congress  of  nations. 

From  Lexington  young  Ruffner  went  first  for  a  year  (1842- 
1843)  of  business  experience  to  the  Kanawha  country,  as  mana- 
ger of  his  father's  salt  works. 

Capital,  he  wrote  his  father  from  this  developing  country, 
was  very  poorly  employed  in  the  east  while  it  demanded  a  high 
price  in  the  west;  one  might  reap  a  tidy  profit  by  playing 
broker.  But  his  instinct  for  business  was  not  to  have  immedi- 
ate play ;  instead  he  must  seek  theological  training  in  the  east. 
Of  this  seminary  work  at  Union  Theological  Seminary  and 
Princeton  we  have  little  knowledge,  save  such  as  may  be  in- 
ferred from  a  single  sermon,  well  written,  well  reasoned,  but 
to  the  modern  mind  heavy  and  dull.  Apparently  he  himself 
counted  as  more  valuable  his  course  in  Moral  Philosophy  at 
the  University  of  Virginia  under  Professor  W.  H.  McGuffey. 
Dr.  McGuffey,  he  afterward  declared,  "converted  my  facul- 
ties into  common-sense,"  and  between  the  two  thereafter  ex- 
isted a  genuine,  Presbyterian  friendship  such  as  Ruffner  rarely 
felt  for  other  men.  One  would  like  to  think  that  the  young 
chaplain  also  attracted  the .  attention  of  John  B.  Minor,  the 
University  of  Virginia's  great  law  teacher;  but  this  can  only 
be  conjectured  from  the  readiness  with  which  Professor  Minor 
later  came  to  his  aid. 

The  University  of  Virginia  of  that  day  would  hardly  be  in- 
fluenced by  a  preacher  of  twenty-six  years.  But  Ruffner  must 
have  displayed  ability,  for  from  there  he  went  to  the  Philadel- 
phia charge.  One  may  fancy  that  life  in  a  large  northern  city 
was  illuminating  to  the  village  preacher.  But  one  must  guard 
against  the  modern  tendency  to  assume  that  the  countryman 
of  that  day  was  backward  in  his  knowledge  of  important  hap- 
penings. We  know  that  he  was  not  immune  to  the  liberal  in- 
tellectual influences  of  Philadelphia.  Particularly  valuable  was 
the  strong  friendship  which  he  formed  with  Stephen  Caldwell, 
whom  he  frequently  called  "the  economist,"  man  of  wide  and 
correct  historical  reading  and  rather  unusual  insight  into  such 
problems  as  the  free  negro  presented  and  was  to  present.  On 


6 


The  South  Atlantic  Quarterly 


the  other  hand  Ruffner  must  have  been  able  to  help  Caldwell, 
for  he  knew  his  father's  view  and  activities  in  the  matter  of 
slavery.  As  long  ago  as  his  Kanawha  year  he  had  formulated 
and  published  ideas  of  his  own  from  which  he  never  receded. 
Slavery,  he  had  written  anonymously  in  the  Kanawha  Repub- 
lican, was  neither  dishonorable  nor  contrary  to  God's  Word, 
but  it  was  an  economic  burden,  and  on  that  account  should  be 
gotten  rid  of.  Later  he  had  served  as  agent  of  the  Coloniza- 
tion Society  in  carrying  negroes  from  Christiansburg  to  Balti- 
more for  deportation  to  Africa.  Later  still  he  had  taken  part 
in  organizing  and  teaching  a  Sunday  school  for  negroes  in  Lex- 
ington, a  work  in  which  Stonewall  Jackson  succeeded  him  after 
an  interval.  And  now  he  could  bring  from  the  Mecca  of  the 
South's  future  rulers  first-hand  knowledge  of  opinion  then  in 
the  making. 

Soon,  however,  came  ill  health — a  nervous  affection  of  the 
throat,  it  seems.  From  the  city  pastorate  Ruffner  retreated  to 
Rockingham  County  where  he  seems  to  have  sunk  into  the  work 
of  occasional  preacher  as  easily  as  he  had  taken  up  a  colporter's 
task  on  leaving  the  Seminary  six  years  before.  One  cannot  easily 
live  in  the  Valley  without  becoming  a  farmer,  so  fertile  is  its 
soil  and  so  genial  its  climate.  Possibly  at  Washington  College 
Ruffner  had  attended  lectures  on  Agricultural  Chemistry — for 
such  were  given,  the  first  in  America,  it  has  been  claimed.  At 
any  rate  he  soon  became  not  only  a  "practical"  farmer  but  also 
a  "scientific"  farmer.  From  farming  chiefly  he  derived  his 
livelihood,  and  years  later  his  "Tribrook"  farm  was  one  of  the 
show  places  of  Lexington,  whither  he  returned  in  1863.  And 
never  did  he  lose  faith  in  Valley  agriculture :  even  in  1891  he 
could  write  in  Suggestions  for  my  family :  "Land  will  increase 
in  value,  and  farming  become  more  profitable."  During  these 
years,  too,  he  became  interested  in  the  geological  formations  of 
the  state,  and  many  are  the  little  note  books  that  he  filled  then 
and  later  with  first-hand  observation.  Characteristically,  he 
attempted  to  put  this  knowledge  to  practical  use,  and  one  finds 
among  his  papers  records  of  more  than  one  commercial  ven- 
ture of  his  own  and  several  stout  volumes  prepared  for  im- 
portant corporations  or  the  federal  government.  But  this  work 
was  done  chiefly  after  his  superintendency.    The  most  import- 


Reconstruction  Statesman  of  Virginia  7 


ant  immediate  result  of  these  pre-war  days  was  the  restoration 
of  his  health  and  a  widening  of  his  acquaintanceship.  And 
only  in  the  light  of  his  varying  activities  at  this  time  can  we 
understand  how  responsible  men  could  a  little  later  speak  so 
confidently  of  his  business  sense  and  executive  powers. 

The  test  of  loyalty  to  one's  own  people  imposed  so  rigor- 
ously during  the  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction  Ruffner  met 
satisfactorily  and  yet  with  dignity.  It  was  Lincoln's  call  for 
troops,  he  told  Stonewall  Jackson,  that  converted  him,  as  so 
many  other  Virginians,  to  secession.  Following  the  accepted 
custom  for  ministers,  he  remained  at  home  and  did  his  bit  by 
visiting  the  distressed,  writing  letters  to  the  front,  gathering 
food  and  clothes  for  the  armies,  joining  the  Home  Guards,  and 
at  least  once  preaching  a  sermon  on  the  obligation  of  the  oath 
of  allegiance.  During  Congressional  Reconstruction  he  shared 
the  intense  indignation  of  Professor  John  B.  Minor  over  the 
"infamous  Catilines  at  Washington."  But  he  probably  never 
joined  the  passive  resistance  group.  Instead,  after  a  decent  in- 
terval and  a  brief  anonymous  re-assertion  of  the  rightfulness  of 
secession  in  the  Charlottesville  Chronicle,  he  dropped  for  good 
and  for  all  the  legalistic  attitude  of  the  South's  old  leaders, 
urged  participation  in  national  life,  and  set  himself  to  study 
the  state's  practical  problems.  Once  more  debate  was  resumed 
in  Franklin  Hall.  On  the  question,  "Is  it  advisable  for  the 
state  of  Virginia,  at  this  time,  to  adopt  a  system  of  Public  Free 
Schools  ?"  Ruffner  took  the  negative,  his  side  winning  twenty- 
seven  to  none.  Less  than  a  year  later,  April  6,  1867,  he  champ- 
ioned the  affirmative  of  the  query,  "Ought  Virginia  to  adopt 
measures  for  the  education  of  the  colored  people?"  and  again 
his  side  won,  sixteen  to  six.  >7 

Embedded  in  the  Virginia  constitution  of  1870  were  pro- 
visions for  the  usual  feature  of  a  modern  school  system.  This 
was  revolutionary.  For  in  the  long  run  its  meaning  was  to  be 
democracy  for  the  whites  and  opportunity  for  the  blacks  through 
the  agency  of  an  increasingly  socialized  state.  Most  of  the 
accustomed  leaders  of  the  whites,  however,  envisioned  the 
revolution  in  the  light  of  the  conquest.  To  them  there  was  at 
best  a  "system  prescribed  by  the  constitution,"  or  "this  system 
of  common  schools  which  has  been  thrust  upon  us."  And 


8 


The  South  Atlantic  Quarterly 


the  great  mass  of  the  whites,  still  stunned  and  apathetic,  agreed. 
On  the  other  hand  some  leaders  felt  with  Mr.  Ruffner  that 
education  ought  to  be  provided,  and  by  the  state,  for  the 
negroes,  so  pathetic  in  their  eagerness  for  schools  and  so  ludi- 
crous in  their  expectations.  Moreover,  the  constitution  was 
mandatory,  and  the  governor  insistent.  Not  from  choice, 
therefore,  but  from  necessity  would  the  legislature  take  up 
early  in  1870  the  election  of  a  state  superintendent  of  public 
instruction,  which  was  its  first  duty  under  the  constitution.  In 
recognition  of  the  situation  the  Educational  Journal  of  Vir- 
ginia had  been  founded,  and  it  perhaps  reflected  the  best  public 
opinion  when  in  February,  1870,  it  said :  The  new  superinten- 
dent must  be  "alive  to.  .  .  .  changes  wrought  by  the  war, 
and  yet  not  a  man  to  surrender  in  homage  to  that  fashionable 
deity  of  New  Virginia  and  purely  material  prosperity,  all  our 
time  honored  memories." 

For  this  position  Mr.  Ruffner  became  a  candidate  in  the 
fall  of  1869.  Though  without  technical  training  or  experience 
in  public  education,  he  was  not  poorly  equipped.  He  was,  as  we 
have  seen,  a  minister;  and  the  ministry  and  education  had  al- 
ways been  closely  allied.  His  education  was  broad,  his  experience 
varied,  his  inclinations  social.  His  record  during  Civil  War 
and  Reconstruction  was  satisfactory.  From  his  letters  of 
recommendation  we  learn  that  his  belief  in  public  education 
was  sincere  but  tempered  with  the  proper  caution  for  the  times. 
Especially  prized  and  valuable  was  a  letter  written  by  Prof. 
John  L.  Campbell  and  signed  by  R.  E.  Lee,  stating  the  belief 
that  he  "will  give  the  system  a  fair  and  honest  trial,  and  that 
he  will  be  most  competent  to  make  what  may  be  good  in  it 
available  for  the  interests  of  education,  and  to  suggest  promptly 
such  alterations  and  amendments  as  future  experience  may 
point  out  as  desirable."  Armed  with  this  letter  and  with  testi- 
monials from  such  men  as  John  B.  Baldwin,  J.  William  Jones, 
A.  Leyburn,  Edward  L.  Joyner,  and  William  Preston  Johnston, 
Mr.  Ruffner  invaded  the  state  capital  and  enlisted  the  aid  of 
friends  and  relatives  there.  Fortunately  politicians  were  not 
much  interested  in  the  position.  And  so  in  the  Conservative 
caucus  "the  Southwest,  Richmond  and  the  Valley  carried  me 
through,"  and  the  Legislature  confirmed  the  nomination,  141  to 


Reconstruction  Statesman  of  Virginia  9 


1,  on  March  2,  1870.  "This  is  a  jejune  life  I  am  leading," 
Ruffner  wrote  his  daughters  about  this  time,  "but  my  con- 
science rests  easy  under  it.  My  work  is  a  great  one — and  I 
must  about  it." 

The  statesmanship  of  the  new  superintendent  quickly  re- 
ceived its  first  test.  Under  the  constitution  it  was  his  duty 
to  "report  to  the  general  assembly  within  thirty  days  after  his 
election  a  plan  for  a  uniform  system  of  public  free  schools." 
This  was  no  slight  task.  For  to  succeed,  the  system  must  be 
simple  enough  to  be  workable  in  the  hands  of  an  untrained 
force  and  yet  so  sound  in  principle  and  so  flexible  in  detail  as 
to  admit  of  continuous  development  as  conditions  improved. 
Selection  and  adaptation  rather  than  originality  were  obviously 
demanded.  But  which  of  the  existing  systems  was  best?  And 
what  adaptations  were  necessary  to  meet  conditions  peculiar  to 
the  South  and  the  education  of  negro  freedmen  in  mass?  On 
these  questions  the  slight  antebellum  experience  of  the  south- 
ern states  and  the  recent  brief  work  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau 
shed  but  little  light.  Fortunately,  the  constitutional  provisions 
were  admirable.  Fortunately,  too,  Dr.  Barnas  Sears,  their 
inspirer  and  perhaps  their  author,  was  accessible.  In  his  capac- 
ity as  agent  of  the  Peabody  Fund  Dr.  Sears  was  proclaiming, 
"Free  schools  for  all,  neither  more  nor  less."  A  New  Eng- 
lander  who  had  been  president  of  Brown  University  and 
secretary  of  the  Massachusetts  state  board  of  education,  he 
was  soon  to  become  a  "citizen  of  Virginia"  and  to  be  recognized 
as  such  by  general  acclaim.  To  him  Ruffner  now  turned  for 
much  technical  advice  and  from  him  learned  how  to  avoid  divis- 
ion and  dissension  by  letting  some  things  work  themselves  out. 
Best  of  all,  perhaps,  Prof.  John  L.  Minor,  of  the  University  of 
Virginia,  tendered  help.  For  Professor  Minor  was  very  learned 
in  the  law,  knew  the  strength  and  weakness  of  his  fellow  Vir- 
ginians, and  was  willing  to  give  to  the  "cause,"  as  he  some- 
times called  public  education,  disinterested  services  whose  value 
has  not  yet  received  adequate  public  recognition.  Possibly 
Ruffner  was  unconsciously  aided  also  by  impressions  derived 
from  his  father's  plan  of  twenty  years  before,  though  he  had 
not  seen  that  plan  for  years. 

But  the  enlistment  of  Sears  and  Minor,  complimentary  as  it 
was  to  the  discretion  and  good  standing  of  Mr.  Ruffner,  did 


10  The  South  Atlantic  Quarterly 


not  relieve  him  of  the  burden  of  the  work  nor  of  the  responsi- 
bility for  its  quality.  Elected  March  2,  by  March  25  he  had 
prepared  a  general  outline  or  "Report,"  thus  satisfying  the 
constitutional  requirement.  "The  main  features,"  he  said  in 
presenting  this  document,  "are  either  such  as  the  constitution 
requires,  or  such  as  have  been  favorably  tested  by  long  ex- 
perience in  other  states  and  countries.  Doubtful  questions  have, 
as  far  as  possible,  been  postponed  to  future  considerations." 
Between  March  30  and  April  18  he  drafted  the  law  at  his  home, 
then  took  it  to  Minor  "who  during  all  this  week.  .  .  . 
devoted  all  possible  time  to  the  work  of  revisal."  On  April  24 
Rufrrier  wrote  his  wife  that  he  and  Minor  finished  the  "re- 
drafting at  half  past  two.  And  as  we  were  so  pleased  with 
our  work,  and  so  with  each  other,  we  chatted  on  until  4. 
Had  it  not  been  Sunday  morning  we  should  have  continued  until 
breakfast  time.  Tomorrow  I  go  to  Richmond  with  the  best 
and  most  finished  school  law  in  America  and  I  shall  see  that 
it  is  not  butchered  by  the  Legislature."  From  May  13  to 
July  8  the  bill  was  before  the  Legislature.  Fortunately  mem- 
bers were  much  interested  in  other  things.  The  House  made 
few  changes.  The  Senate  cut  the  pay  of  county  superintendents 
and  "otherwise  mutilated  the  system,"  Ruffner  reported  in  tem- 
porary disgust.  At  the  critical  moment  Governor  Walker 
threatened  not  to  sign  because  he  understood  prepayment  of 
poll  taxes  was  required  of  parents ;  but,  wrote  Ruffner  in  glee, 
"it  wasn't  there !" 

II 

Among  the  excellencies  of  the  Virginia  constitution  of 
1869  was  the  flexibility  of  its  school  provisions.  Taking  ad- 
vantage of  this  Dr.  Ruffner  so  drew  the  school  law  and  its 
early  amendments  that  the  new  system  was  in  line  with  the  best 
ante  helium  practices  and  tendencies  and  yet  presented  the 
fundamental  features  of  the  system  as  it  is  today  under  another 
constitution.1  There  were  to  be  schools  in  all  the  counties  and 
these  schools  were  to  be  free  to  all — subject,  of  course,  to  age 
qualifications  which  were  made  quite  elastic  in  view  of  the 


1  Knight,  "Reconstruction  and  Education  in  Virginia"  in  South  Atlantic 
Quarterly,  January  and  April,  1916.  A  similar  conclusion,  reached  independently, 
is  expressed  in  Pearson,  "Readjuster  Movement  in  Virginia." 


Reconstruction  Statesman  of  Virginia  11 

unusually  wide-spread  illiteracy.  These  schools  were  to  be 
financed  by  the  fruitful  combination  of  state  and  local  taxation 
in  addition  to  the  income  from  the  old  Literary  Fund.  Local 
control  was  to  be  exercised  through  boards  of  district  trustees, 
local  supervision  through  county  superintendents,  who  also 
licensed  teachers.  Special  districts  were  not  encouraged,  ex- 
cept in  the  case  of  towns  and  cities :  an  effort  to  subdivide  the 
districts  (which  coincided  with  the  "townships,"  or  magisterial 
districts)  was  vigorously  combatted  some  years  later  on  the 
ground  that  this  attempt  at  popularizing  would  result  in  dis- 
organization and  demoralization.  The  appointment  of  county 
superintendents  and  district  trustees  rested  with  the  state  board 
of  education,  which  consisted  of  the  governor,  attorney-general, 
and  state  superintendent.  To  the  latter  board  was  also  given 
an  important  ordinance-making  power.  The  subjects  to  be 
taught  were  the  usual  elementary  ones  of  the  day:  secondary 
studies  in  the  elementary  schools  and  secondary  schools  in  the 
towns  and  cities  were  permitted,  but  were  not  encouraged  in 
the  counties  as  the  supply  of  private  academies  was  quite  ade- 
quate for  the  elementary  school  output.2  There  were  separate 
schools,  of  course,  for  the  whites  and  the  negroes,  but  both 
were  supported  by  the  joint  contribution  (through  taxation) 
of  the  two  races,  and  control  over  both  was  vested  in  a  single 
set  of  officers  in  whose  selection  race  played  no  legal  part. 

As  a  model  for  a  country  just  beginning  its  free  school 
system,  this  law  was  sent  by  the  United  States  Commissioner  of 
Education  to  the  government  of  Chile ;  and  from  that  govern- 
ment Dr.  Ruffner  received  a  much  prized  medal.  More  im- 
portant, perhaps,  as  evidence  of  contemporary  expert  opinion 
are  the  Commissioner's  specific  recommendation  in  his  report 
for  1872  that  other  Southern  states  study  the  Virginia  program 
and  the  definite  statement  of  Dr.  Sears  in  1873  that  Virginia 
led  the  South  in  respect  to  systems  of  public  education.  Yet 
in  one  respect  the  law  proved  bad:  however  useful  the  con- 
centration of  power  in  the  state  board  might  be  in  the  begin- 
ning, such  a  policy  thrust  too  heavy  a  burden  upon  the  central 
office,  it  continually  subjected  the  system  to  the  dangers  of  po- 
litical interference,  and  it  did  not  foster  public  interest  locally. 


2  Cf.  U.  S.  Commissioner  of  Education,  Report,  1872. 


12 


The  South  Atlantic  Quarterly 


The  advantages  of  decentralization,  however,  do  not  appear 
to  have  impressed  Dr.  RufTner  until  general  criticism  of  his 
power  (though  not  of  its  use)  appeared  in  1873.3  Then,  ex- 
pressing pleasure  at  being  "relieved"  from  the  work  and  worry 
involved,  he  prepared  a  bill  transferring  the  appointment  of 
trustees  to  local  boards,  which  became  a  law  in  1874.  This 
was  followed  by  another  law  "restoring  to  local  authorities 
power  which  should  never  have  been  taken  from  them"  in  the 
selection  of  text-books.  And  by  1881  he  was  convinced  that 
the  appointment  of  county  superintendents  should  be  transferred 
to  local  boards.  In  no  other  important  respects,  however,  did 
it  prove  desirable  in  the  opinion  either  of  Dr.  RufTner  or  of 
the  legislature  to  change  the  law  as  originally  drafted.  Ad- 
ditions were  made  from  time  to  time — providing  for  the  train- 
ing of  teachers,  for  example — and  other  additions  would  have 
been  made  had  the  superintendent  been  able  to  secure  requisite 
funds. 

In  his  "suggestions  for  my  family"  Dr.  RufTner  set  down 
as  a  conclusion  of  his  mature  years :  "There  is  more  in  the 
right  execution  of  any  plan  than  in  the  plan  itself."  Perhaps 
he  was  thinking  of  why  his  school  plan  did  not  go  the  way  of 
Jefferson's  and  Henry  RufTner's.  Here  was  his  second  test. 
Recognizing  that  promptness  was  vital,  he  nominated  superin- 
tendents for  the  hundred  counties  and  secured  their  appoint- 
ment before  the  Senate  adjourned,  forced  his  dilatory  col- 
leagues on  the  state  board  to  elect  nearly  thirteen  hundred  dis- 
trict trustees  by  the  end  of  the  year,  got  some  of  the  sphools 
open  during  the  fall  of  1869,  and  by  the  spring  of  1870  he  had 
in  operation  more  than  2,900  schools,  enrolling  130,000  pupils 
and  taught  by  3,084  teachers,  distributed  among  all  the  counties. 
This  was  a  showing  at  least  fifty  per  cent  better  than  that  of 
any  previous  year  in  the  state's  experience. 

The  momentum  of  this  initial  success  was,  of  course)  great. 
The  doubtful  and  hostile  were  now  confronted  by  an  accom- 
plished fact.  But  speed  had  not  been  achieved  at  the  expense 
of  thoroughness.  With  great  energy  Dr.  RufTner  combined 
shrewdness  and  sound  judgment.  In  making  appointments  he 
sought  advice  through  circulars  sent  to  prominent  citizens  in 


3  See  Richmond  Whig,  May,  1873,  and  Richmond  Dispatch,  January,  (1874. 


Reconstruction  Statesman  of  Virginia  13 

the  several  counties.  "A  perfect  county  superintendent  of 
schools,"  he  wrote,  "would  be  a  young  man  or  middle  aged 
man  of  successful  experience  as  a  teacher,  pleasant  in  manners, 
irreproachable  character,  good  speaking  abilities,  architectural 
taste,  energy,  talent,  prudence,  sound  opinions,  public  spirit, 
zeal  for  education  of  the  people  and  faith  in  the  public  school 
system."  But  as  if  doubtful  of  his  ability  to  secure  such  a 
one  for  the  average  salary  of  two  hundred  and  seventeen  dol- 
lars, he  added :  "The  man  recommended  for  the  office  should 
be  the  one  who  combines  the  most  of  these  qualities."  In 
actual  practice  he  sought  men  whose  education  and  character 
would  tend  to  remove  the  stigma  of  "common",  which  the 
schools  at  first  bore.  Insisting  that  their  duties  were  "profes- 
sional in  character,"  he  sought  to  render  them  expert  through 
uninterrupted  service.  But  although  in  1880  nearly  one  half 
were  original  appointees,  few  were  efficient  according  to  modern 
standards.  This  deficiency,  however,  should  not  be  charged 
against  Dr.  Ruffner:  none  of  his  successors  for  a  generation 
was  able  to  fill  the  positions  more  satisfactorily  and  none  has 
set  a  higher  standard  of  qualifications.  In  the  selection  of 
trustees  he  was  more  successful.  For  this  office  he  sought 
especially  "young  men  with  families,"  whose  direct  personal 
interest  would  supplement  their  scanty  experience  in  the  un- 
remunerated  and  thankless  task  of  selecting  teachers  and  man- 
aging school  property.  Of  them  he  could  write  in  1880  that, 
despite  the  millions  of  dollars  that  had  passed  through  their 
hands,  none  of  them  had  been  "even  charged  with  malfeasance 
in  office." 

Appointments,  however,  consumed  only  a  small  part  of 
the  third  of  his  time  that  Dr.  Rufrner  assigned  to  office  work. 
Besides  "the  matter  of  text-books  which  worked  and  worried 
the  Board  onerously  for  the  .first  six  or  seven  years,"  there 
were  blank  forms  to  be  designed,  instructions  to  be  formulated, 
a  large  correspondence  to  be  handled,  and  accounts  to  be  kept. 
It  was  not  the  custom  then,  even  in  the  wealthy  states,  to  main- 
tain a  large  office  force ;  Dr.  Ruffner's  usually  consisted  of  one 
or  two  clerks.  With  assistance  from  the  Peabody  Fund  he 
leased  space  in  the  Educational  Journal  of  Virginia  and  had  the 
superintendents  and  trustees  supplied  with  copies.    "No  part 


14 


The  South  Atlantic  Quarterly 


of  my  work  tells  better  on  the  efficiency  of  the  system,"  he 
said  in  1874.  But  political  Solons  did  not  much  like  the  idea 
and  grew  irate  at  a  whisper  that  teachers  were  being  urged  to 
subscribe.  A  committee  appointed  to  investigate  the  office  in 
1879  found  nothing  to  report  except  evidence  of  impatience  at 
petty  bookkeeping.  It  was  probably  debarred  from  criticising 
the  office  as  inadequate  and  unworthy  of  the  system  by  the 
knowledge  that  the  expense  of  a  more  elaborate  office  would 
have  been  difficult  to  meet  and  could  never  have  been  explained 
satisfactorily.  And  it  must  be  set  down  as  another  testimony 
to  Dr.  Ruftner's  grasp  of  the  situation  that  he  endured  this 
waste  of  his  time  without  complaint. 

In  fact  the  school  revenues  .were  continuously  inadequate 
and  precarious.  At  first  the  local  tax  levy  gave  trouble,  but 
this  quickly  disappeared  under  skillful  management.  Then  came 
the  difficulty  of  securing  the  schools'  quota  of  the  state  taxes.4 
The  root  of  this  trouble  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  constitution 
guaranteed  both  the  state  debt  and  the  school  funds  and  there 
was  not  money  enough  for  both.  In  the  contest  Dr.  Ruffner 
displayed  his  wonted  foresight  and  energy.  For  example,  when 
the  taxes  began  to  be  paid  very  largely  in  depreciated  coupons, 
he  was  able  to  produce  a  law,  whose  passage  he  had  previously 
secured,  requiring  the  auditor  to  turn  over  to  the  schools  their 
quota  in  money.  In  the  debate  which  ensued  over  this  matter  of 
"diversion"  he  quite  unhorsed  the  auditor,  who.  however,  con- 
tinued to  discriminate  in  favor  of  the  state's  creditors  and  the 
other  governmental  agencies  until  the  matter  was  settled  by 
compromises  to  be  noted  later.  This  contest  was  of  the  utmost 
importance.  From  the  standpoint  of  public  education  the 
principle  involved  was  the  right  of  the  schools  to  be  deemed  a 
permanent  governmental  agency  entitled  to  support  equally 
with  other  governmental  agencies.5  This  phase  may  be  re- 
served, along  with  the  effect  upon  Ruffner's  personal  fortunes, 
for  later  discussion.  Fiscally,  the  net  result  was  a  total  expen- 
diture annually  of  considerably  more  than  in  any  other  state  of 
the  South  proper — fourteen  per  cent,  more  than  in  Mississippi, 


4  See  Pearson,  op  ext.,  ch.  3,  ff.  and  Knight,  op.  cit. 

5  Cf.  Heatwole,  History  of  Education  in  Virginia,  p.  223.  I  think,  however, 
Dr.  Heatwole  is  wrong  in  his  suggestion  that  the  chief  motive  of  the  state  auditoi 
(not  "treasurer")  was  "to  weaken  and  ultimately  defeat  the  public  school  system." 


Reconstruction  Statesman  of  Virginia  15 

twenty-five  per  cent,  more  than  in  Texas,  and  more  than  double 
the  amounts  in  Georgia  and  Louisiana.  At  the  same  time  ex- 
penses were  kept  down,  and  the  report  of  1880  disclosed  that 
there  had  been  "almost  no  increase  in  the  cost  of  administration, 
and  a  decided  reduction  in  the  cost  of  education  per  pupil." 
Despite  this  comparative  success,  however,  Dr.  Ruffner  was  at 
all  times  impressed  with  the  advisability  of  having  a  separate 
source  of  revenue  for  the  schools,  and  so,  at  one  time  or  an- 
other, he  advocated  a  special  tax  on  polls,  a  tax  on  dogs,  and  a 
consumption  tax  on  liquors.  Crude  as  these  suggestions  sounded 
then,  they  represent  a  point  of  view  that  may  yet  find  legisla- 
tive sanction. 

One  third  of  his  time  Dr.  Ruffner  spent  in  the  field,  travel- 
ing 55,657  miles,  perhaps  half  of  it  in  a  buggy,  and  delivering 
three  hundred  and  twenty-six  formal  addresses.  Here  was  a 
test  of  physical  endurance  as  well  as  of  energy,  of  tactfulness  as 
well  as  of  judgment.  But  in  no  other  way  could  the  local  forces 
have  been  kept  in  touch  with  the  central  office — even  thirty 
years  later  there  was  much  grumbling  and  wagging  of  heads 
when  inspectors  were  introduced.  How  many  heart-to-heart 
talks  about  buildings  and  teachers  and  text -books  and  grading 
and  methods  he  had,  we  can  not  even  estimate.  These  trips  to 
the  schools  enabled  Dr.  Ruffner  to  test  out  his  theoretical 
reading  and  thinking.  They  gave  him  a  check  on  the  reports 
of  his  subordinates.  And  they  probably  account  in  large  meas- 
ure for  the  affection  with  which  he  came  to  be  regarded  among 
the  rank  and  file.  Most  important  was  his  insistence  that 
teachers  attain  "professional  ability"  through  definite  training 
in  methods  of  teaching.6  By  1880  he  was  able  to  report  that 
teachers'  institutes  were  "becoming  general,  having  been  held 
the  past  year  in  all  but  eleven  of  the  hundred  counties."  The 
immediate  value  of  these  was  probably  not  great.  But  they  so 
served  to  advertise  the  idea  that  it  crystallized  into  an  institu- 
tion :  in  1880  the  first  state  summer  normal  schools  were  opened, 
and  in  1885  the  first  full  time  state  normal  institute  was  estab- 
lished under  the  presidency  of  Dr.  Ruffner.  One  may  perhaps 
be  pardoned  the  comment  that  however  we  may  estimate  the 
efficiency  of  these  institutions  as  regards  imparting  "profes- 


6  Cf.  Heatwole,  op.  ext.,  pp.  235,  236. 


16 


The  South  Atlantic  Quarterly 


sional  ability,"  this  much  can  not  be  gainsaid :  they  have 
proven  veritable  intellectual  and  cultural  life-savers  to  thou- 
sands of  the  state's  almost  despairing  young  women. 

Upon  Dr.  Ruffner  fell  also  the  burden  of  developing  a 
body  of  sound  public  opinion  behind  the  school  system.  Pecul- 
iar circumstances  rendered  this  task  heavier,  perhaps,  than  that 
borne  by  any  other  superintendent  of  his  day.  It  will  be  remem- 
bered that  the  acceptance  of  public  education  in  Virginia  had 
been  rather  tentative.  About  1875  the  philosophy  of  education 
to  which  most  of  the  older  leaders  subscribed  began  to  at- 
tain formulation.  Any  extension  of  the  functions  of  govern- 
ment beyond  "the  protection  of  individuals  in  all  their  just 
rights  of  person  and  property,"  -it  was  said,  tends  to  "relax 
individual  energy  and  debauch  private  morality."  For  those 
engaged  in  menial  duties,  upon  which  society  reposes,  educa- 
tion is  neither  necessary  nor  wise :  the  exceptional  child  of 
unworthy  parents  can  be  taken  care  of  by  private  charity. 
Uniformity  in  education  is  "utterly  antagonistic  to  that  individ- 
ualism which  it  is  the  function  of  education  to  develop" ;  for 
"the  law  of  nature  is  inequality,  diversity."  Moreover,  the 
"public  school  is  atheism  or  infidelity"  because  it  substitutes 
state  control  over  the  child  for  the  parents',  which  is  a  "nega- 
tion of  God's  authority."  Thus  ran  the  argument  of  Professor 
B.  Puryear.  of  Richmond  College  ;7  that  of  Dr.  R.  L.  Dabney, 
of  Union  Theological  Seminary,  was  quite  similar.  According 
to  Dr.  Ruffner  these  views  grew  largely  out  of  the  old  contro- 
versy over  slavery,  which  had  driven  men  "into  a  depreciation 
of  the  claims  of  working  people,  and  a  denial  of  the  power  of 
common  schools  to  improve  this  class."8  This  fact,  of  course, 
gave  to  such  views  a  more  cordial  reception  than  was  accorded 
elsewhere  to  the  attack  on  the  schools — an  attack  which  some 
thought  to  be  concerted  and  nation-wide.  Moreover,  the  finan- 
cial situation  was  acute  and  a  general  conservative  reaction 
was  under  way  in  Virginia.  Accordingly  this  philosophy,  given 
wide  publicity  through  the  state  press  from  1875  to  1880,  fur- 
nished a  theoretic  foundation  for  a  rather  definite  movement  in 
behalf  of  a  cheaper  and  less  comprehensive  system  of  education. 


7  Religious  Herald,  January  and  February,  1875. 

8  Educational  Journal  of  Virginia,  March,  1880. 


Reconstruction  Statesman  of  Virginia  17 

To  the  task  of  formulating  the  argument  for  public  educa- 
tion Dr.  Ruffner  set  himself  with  zeal  and  zest.  The  report 
which  he  presented  to  the  legislature  along  with  his  "outline," 
early  in  1870,  was  his  brief.  To  the  amplification  and  defense 
of  this  he  devoted  the  greater  part  of  the  third  of  his  time 
which  he  set  aside  for  "study  and  writing."  His  appearance 
before  the  State  Educational  Association  in  the  summer  of 
1870  marks  the  beginning  of  more  than  three  hundred  formal 
addresses  in  the  state.  And  the  beginning  was  propitious ;  for 
from  this  group  of  college  teachers,  writers  and  students  he 
obtained  an  endorsement,  albeit  a  qualified  one,  of  the  new 
system.  His  carefully  prepared  addresses  before  the  National 
Educational  Association  and  at  Hampton  Institute  were  re- 
ported promptly  and  fully  in  the  state  press.  They  reveal  him 
as  a  thinker,  liberal  and  progressive,  yet  balanced  and  practical. 
The  number  of  his  contributions  to  the  press  was  probably 
known  to  few  of  his  contemporaries.  For,  acting  on  Profes- 
sor Minor's  suggestion,  he  refused  to  let  pass  attacks  on  the 
system  or  any  part  of  it,  and  he  could  not,  or  would  not,  "in- 
spire" others  to  do  the  work  for  him,  as  Minor  advised.  He 
contributed  frequently  to  the  New  England  Journal  of  Educa- 
tion and  occasionally  to  other  magazines  of  wide  circulation. 
He  met  the  redoubtable  Dr.  R.  L.  Dabney  in  a  newspaper  de- 
bate that  outlasted  the  patience  of  several  editors,  and  came 
out  without  loss  of  honors.9  But  most  effective  were  his  an- 
nual Reports.  These  he  prepared  with  great  care — reading 
widely,  digging  deeply  into  records,  summarizing  reports  of  sub- 
ordinates, adjusting  and  readjusting  his  notes  until  there  were 
developed  arguments  that  were  models  of  accuracy  and  dignity 
and  yet  permeated  with  the  white  heat  of  conviction. 

To  summarize  the  arguments  of  twenty  years  in  a  single 
paragraph  is,  of  course,  impossible ;  we  may  hope  only  to  illus- 
trate their  variety  and  their  direction.  Seeking  to  offset  the 
objection — with  some  serious,  with  others  demagogic — that  pub- 
lic education  was  peculiarly  a  New  England  idea.  Dr.  Ruffner 
endeavored  to  show  historically  that  "the  duty  of  providing 

9  See  Richmond  Enquirer,  July  29,  1876.  Dr.  Dabney  began  in  the  Southern 
Planter,  February  21,  1876;  Dr.  Ruffner  in  the  Richmond  Dispatch.  A  good  deal 
of  acerbity  lay  behind  this  debate.  Dr.  Ruffner  thought  of  Dr.  Dabney  as  having 
turned  against  him  for  an  unworthy  reason  and  Dr.  Dabney  impugned  Dr. 
Ruffner's  sincerity  on  account  of  an  early  anonymous  article. 


18 


The  South  Atlantic  Quarterly 


means  of  education  from  public  funds  has  never  been  seriously- 
questioned  in  our  state."  The  right  of  the  state  to  do  this  he 
based  primarily  on  the  profitableness  of  the  "systematic  pro- 
duction of  the  most  valuable  commodity  which  can  be  possessed 
by  a  state  or  offered  in  the  markets  of  the  world — namely, 
trained  mind."  Education,  he  continued,  both  saved  expense 
and  increased  the  production  of  wealth  "by  drying  up  the 
sources  of  crime  and  pauperism  and  by  quickening  the  mind 
and  guiding  the  hand  of  every  worker  in  the  land."  From  the 
political  viewpoint,  universal  suffrage  simply  necessitates  uni- 
versal education.  But  that  "private  enterprise  never  did,  and 
never  can,  educate  a  whole  people,"  he  maintained  was  proven, 
first  by  the  census  statistics  on.  illiteracy,  and  second  by  its 
excessive  cost.  While  the  schools  were  of  "various  degrees  of 
excellence,"  they  were  "always  equal  to  and  often  superior 
to  those  which  had  previously  existed,"  in  proof  of  which  he 
sketched  the  old-time  school  and  schoolmaster  and  pointed  to 
the  rapid  disappearance  of  the  private  schools  in  the  face  of 
competition,  even  in  the  rural  districts.  Far  from  admitting 
the  religious  and  moral  objections,  he  claimed  that  "free  schools 
do  not  diminish  parental  responsibility;  on  the  contrary,  they 
awaken  it;  they  stimulate  it  to  an  ardent  glowing  zeal;  and 
they  supply  the  means  to  make  it  achieve  the  most  valuable  re- 
sults." To  the  "graver  objection — that  the  free  school  system 
inclines  the  people  to  religious  error  and  impiety,"  he  replied, 
"Is  ignorance  the  mother  of  devotion?  Moreover,  the  moral 
influence  pervading  every  school  will  be  just  the  influence  per- 
vading the  neighborhood  in  which  it  is  carried  on.  Every  prop- 
erly conducted  school,  itself,  furnishes  an  admirable  moral  as 
well  as  intellectual  discipline." 

In  his  attitude  toward  the  negro  Dr.  Ruffner  combined 
breadth  of  view  with  definite,  practicable  policy.  Arguing  from 
the  experience  of  Europe  with  the  emancipated  serfs,  he  be- 
lieved that  the  "momentum  in  the  direction  of  industry,  order 
and  docility,  which  slavery  imparted,"  must  be  supplemented  by 
Christianity  and  education.  He  had  no  illusions  as  to  the  morals 
of  the  negroes  and  their  proneness  to  superstition  and  their 
credulity,  "which  may  easily  bring  them  under  influences  of 
all  sorts."    But  he  asserted  their  improvability,  citing  ancient 


Reconstruction  Statesman  of  Virginia  19 


African  history,  the  observations  and  opinions  of  Jefferson, 
the  experience  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  and  their  Sunday 
dress,  which  he  considered  "evidence  of  thrift  and  aspiring 
taste."  Like  his  father,  he  was  at  all  times  fond  of  collecting 
information  as  to  exceptional  negroes,  the  last  being  Booker 
Washington.  As  to  the  kind  of  education,  he  thought  it  should 
be  "special  and  peculiar  in  its  character — not  substantially  dif- 
ferent" but  with  "an  adaption  in  the  selection  and  arrangement 
of  studies  and  in  the  method  of  instruction  to  the  character  and 
wants  of  the  people."  The  duty  of  the  state  in  the  matter  he 
grounded  upon  the  perils  of  neglect,  as  well  as  upon  the  ad- 
vantages of  negro  improvement.  In  administering  the  laws  he 
instructed  his  subordinates  to  be  scrupulously  fair,  and  he  com- 
pletely overwhelmed  with  the  facts  in  the  case  a  specific  charge 
of  unfairness  to  which  the  Nation  gave  prominence.  While 
the  results  of  the  experiment  in  Virginia  appeared  encouraging, 
in  supporting  a  resolution  for  federal  aid  which,  as  chairman  of 
the  committee  on  national  legislation,  he  presented  to  the  de- 
partment of  superintendents  of  the  National  Educational  As- 
sociation, he  did  not  hesitate  to  say:  "The  kind  and  amount  of 
education  they  are  receiving,  or  can  receive  with  our  present 
means,  is  wholly  inadequate  to  the  great  work  of  fitting  them  as 
a  race  for  the  duties  laid  upon  them  by  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment."10 But  assistance  was  not  desired  at  the  price  of  con- 
trol. On  this  point  he  was  very  clear.  The  southern  man,  he 
pointed  out,  had  studied  the  negro  as  no  one  else.  He  believed, 
as  had  his  father,  that  interference  from  without  had  nipped 
in  the  bud  very  hopeful  beginnings  in  ante  helium  days:11 
this  must  not  happen  again.  When  Summer's  Civil  Rights  Bill, 
which  required  mixed  schools,  was  pending  in  1874,  he  wrote 
in  Scribner's  Magazine  that  although  history  seemed  to  fore- 
tell a  gradual  diminution  of  race  friction,  for  the  present 
"unless  there  is  a  due  recognition  of  caste  in  public  education  at 
the  South,  the  common  school  education  in  fifteen  states  will 
be  a  failure."  Speaking  at  the  commencement  of  Hampton 
Institute  the  same  year,  he  drew  a  parallel  between  the  negroes 
and  Israel  after  the  bondage  and  urged  his  hearers  on  to  a 
consciousness  and  pride  of  race.  Leaders  of  their  own  they 
must  develop,  especially  teachers  and  farmers ;  but  for  these 


20  The  South  Atlantic  Quarterly 


"to  take  possession  and  to  occupy  positions,  in  advance  of  their 
personal  fitness  therefor,"  would  be  contrary  to  the  "sound 
development  of  the  race."12  Two  expressions  in  one  of  his 
last  letters  probably  summed  up  his  final  views :  disfranchise- 
ment through  constitutional  devices  could  not  safely  be  avoided ; 
and,  "What  a  work  Hampton  is  doing!" 

In  estimating  the  influence  of  these  writings  and  speeches  we 
must  consider  them  as  part  of  a  general  policy  directed  toward 
the  formation  of  a  sound  public  opinion  in  the  matter  of  public 
education.  Important  men  read  the  Reports  and  wrote  of  them 
with  enthusiasm.  "The  most  valuable  volume  ever  published 
.  .  .  in  our  state"  and  "an  argument  .  .  .  which  is 
unanswerable,"  were  the  comments  made  respectively  by 
Robert  W.  Hughes  and  John  W.  Daniels,  Republican  and 
Conservative  leaders.  "Your  report,"  said  Minor,  "is 
calculated  to  illustrate  the  immense  value  of  a  depart- 
ment of  education  even  though  there  were  nothing  but  a 
head  to  it."  From  the  viewpoint  of  the  General  Agent 
of  the  Peabody  Fund,  Dr.  Sears  wrote  in  1872  and  1873 
that  the  Reports  were  in  constant  demand,  were  contributing  a 
"powerful  influence,  especially  among  the  conservative  states  of 
the  South,"  that  the  one  of  1873  was  "the  educational  document 
for  all  the  South,"  and  that  the  Virginia  system  was  constantly 
being  studied  and  copied.  From  this  viewpoint  omissions,  too, 
become  eloquent.  Thus  Dr.  RufTner  could  not  plead  for  the 
unfortunate  because  every  friend  of  the  new  system  earnestly 
desired  that  the  stigma  which  had  done  so  much  to  spoil  the 
old  system  should  not  attach  to  the  new.  He  did  not  use 
the  doctrine  of  individual  rights,  probably  because  that  doctrine 
had  been  over-worked  during  Reconstruction.  The  extensive 
and  very  important  private  and  denominational  interests  he 
treated  with  the  greatest  discretion.  Though  he  argued  for 
the  superiority  of  public  over  private  elementary  and  secondary 
schools,  he  treated  the  latter  as  important  auxiliaries,  not  en- 
emies, of  the  former.  As  between  state  and  denominational 
institutions  of  higher  learning,  his  position  was  one  of  neutral- 


10  Educational  Journal  of  Virginia,  March,  1880. 

11  Among  his  newspaper  clippings  is  one  describing  a  Lexington  school  which 
children  of  both  races  had  attended. 

12  Richmond  Dispatch,  June  11,  1874. 


Reconstruction  Statesman  of  Virginia  21 

ity.  He  did,  indeed,  once  incorporate  an  article  descriptive  of 
the  University  of  Virginia  which  Professor  Minor  had  writ- 
ten ;  but  this  he  regretted,  and  University  friends  found  it  dif- 
ficult to  induce  him  even  to  appear  at  their  commencement.  By 
command  of  the  legislature  he  served  for  a  time  on  the  board 
of  trustees  of  the  state's  new  agricultural  and  mechanical  col- 
lege. The  technical  side  of  the  school's  work  interested  him: 
it  was  he  that  labored  most  earnestly  to  make  it  a  real  technical 
school  and  not  just  another  college,  and  he  once  thought  se- 
riously of  becoming  its  president.  But  the  politics  which  at- 
tended the  institution  from  its  inception  disgusted  him  and  he 
eagerly  sought  relief  from  his  trusteeship.  Whatever  may  be 
the  correct  educational  theory  of  the  relations  between  the 
state's  higher  and  its  lower  educational  institutions  today,  the 
attitude  of  Dr.  Ruffner  was  certainly  correct  in  his  time.  Its 
significance  was  seen  when  the  important  Dover  Baptist  As- 
sociation went  squarely  on  record  as  favoring  public  schools 
and  when  influential  journals  like  the  Methodist  Christian 
Advocate  and  the  Baptist  Religious  Herald  committed  them- 
selves to  the  new  undertaking.  Similarly,  when  the  cry  was 
raised  that  Catholic  influences  were  behind  a  nation-wide  at- 
tack on  public  education,  he  was  quick  to  point  out  that  some 
of  the  schools'  best  friends  in  Virginia  were  Catholics.  Thus 
the  wisdom  of  his  policy  found  fruitage  in  the  gradual  disap- 
pearance of  opposition  from  political  and  denominational  inter- 
ests. As  for  the  masses  of  the  people,  the  success  of  the  system 
converted  them  to  its  support  so  that  in  1877  it  was  accounted 
death  for  a  public  man  to  put  himself  in  open  opposition. 

Politics  was  Mr.  RufTner's  bete  noir.  Early  in  his  superin- 
tendency  he  suggested  through  the  Educational  Journal  "the 
propriety  of  endeavoring  to  secure  supervisors  who  would  pro- 
vide the  necessary  accommodations  for  the  schools."  But 
warning  came  quick  and  sharp,  and  he  heeded  it.  He  even 
prepared  a  bill  requiring  the  state  and  county  superintendents 
to  keep  out  of  politics,  but  later  became  convinced  that  "the 
best  law  is  a  stern  public  sentiment."  Politicians,  however, 
would  not  let  him  and  the  schools  alone.  The  Conservative 
party  tried  to  make  political  capital  out  of  the  growing  popular- 
ity of  the  system ;  the  Republicans  sought  to  drive  a  wedge  be- 


22 


The  South  Atlantic  Quarterly 


tween  the  superintendent  and  the  Conservative  party.  At- 
tracted by  the  possibilities  of  his  office,  a  factional  group  that 
at  one  time  included  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Education, 
sought  to  prevent  his  re-election  in  1874  by  the  action  of  a 
"snap"'  caucus  and  were  defeated  only  by  a  filibuster  of  Wil- 
liam E.  Massey,  who  later  succeeded  to  the  superintendency. 
Repeatedly  he  headed  off  attacks  on  the  system  made  under  the 
guise  of  friendliness,  or  saved  it  from  its  politically  ambitious 
friends.  Irritated  by  such  attacks,  he  laid  himself  open  to 
charges  of  "bruskness"  ;  it  was  in  meeting  such  attacks  that  he 
printed  anonymous  newspaper  articles,  which  of  course  returned 
to  plague  him.  It  was  probably  on  account  of  disgust  with 
this  phase  of  his  office  that  in  1874  he  sought  and  obtained 
from  the  Lexington  Presbytery  an  honorable  demission  from 
the  ministry.  ; 

And  politics  were  in  the  ^end  to  prove  his  undoing. 
About  1877  reaction  against  ^radicalism"  of  all  sorts,  including 
the  schools,  was  at  its  height.  With  the  elimination  of  the 
negro  voter  the  carpet-bagger  and  the  scalawag  had  fallen, 
and  then  the  compromiser.  The  offices  were  now  held,  and  the 
dominant  party's  policies  determined,  by  men  of  long  estab- 
lished reputations  for  loyalty  and  stability.  The  sympathy  of 
these  later  leaders  went  out  strongly  to  the  state's  creditors 
who,  long  put  off  with  partial  payments,  were  organizing  and 
pressing  for  their  interest.  On  the  other  hand,  the  schools  had 
become  popular.  Under  these  circumstances  a  new  group,  call- 
ing itself  ''Readjuster,'"  was  formed  within  the  Conservative 
party,  beginning  about  1877.  It  sought  to  put  the  old  leaders 
out,  to  liberalize  party  politics,  break  the  bondage  of  the  debt 
through  partial  repudiation,  and  develop  the  state's  institu- 
tions in  the  interests  of  the  common  man.  In  this  group  were 
some  of  Dr.  Ruffner's  political  pests,  notably  H.  H.  Riddle- 
berger.  But  it  also  included  important  friends  of  the  schools, 
among  them  John  E.  Massey  and,  especially,  Elam  of  the 
Richmond  Whig,  of  whom  Dr.  Ruffner  said,  "a  better  school 
man  never  put  pen  to  paper."  In  the  legislative  elections  of 
1877  this  group,  aided  by  Dr.  Ruffner's  powerful  arguments 
against  "diversion"  and  by  the  pitiable  plight  of  the  schools, 
seemed  to  win  an  important  advantage.    They  quickly  passed 


Reconstruction  Statesman  of  Virginia  23 


the  "Barbour  Bill"  under  which  the  schools'  quota  of  state 
taxes  was  definitely  apportioned  to  them,  but  which  met  a 
prompt  veto.  In  the  passage  of  this  bill  Dr.  RufTner  cooperated. 
He  soon  saw,  however,  that  public  education  could  not  afford 
to  become  tainted  with  repudiation  or  drawn  into  factional 
politics.  Besides,  he  was  too  nearly  an  aristocrat  and  too  much 
of  a  gentleman  for  permanent  alliance  with  the  "New  Move- 
ment." Therefore,  when  the  older  group  and  the  creditors, 
after  a  fight  which  at  one  time  threatened  the  very  existence 
of  the  school  system,  proposed  concessions  under  which  the 
interests  of  the  schools  appeared  to  be  safeguarded  and  per- 
haps improved,  Dr.  RufTner,  in  company  with  some  of  the  more 
moderate  Readjusters,  declared  in  favor  of  the  new  arrange- 
ment, which  thereupon  was  enacted  into  the  law  known  as  the 
"McColloch  Bill."13  This  concession  was  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance; for  it  marked  the  final  recognition  of  the  schools  as 
an  agency  of  the  state  entitled  to  financial  support.  But  Dr. 
Ruffner's  support  of  the  McCulloch  Bill  had  another  conse- 
quence. This  bill  was  the  Readjusters'  specific  point  of  attack 
during  the  ensuing  campaign  of  1879.  By  his  endorsement  of 
it  he  incurred  their  hostility.  In  the  elections  they  won  a  sweep- 
ing victory.  Still  Dr.  Ruffner  seemed  to  think  that  in  view  of 
his  record  and  his  effort  at  keeping  the  schools  out  of  politics, 
he  might  be  reelected  in  1882.  Important  influences  were 
exerted  in  his  behalf.  Thus  General  S.  C.  Armstrong,  of 
Hampton,  wrote  that  he  could  "do  more  than  any  other  man  as 
superintendent,"  and  from  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Educa- 
tion came  word  that  the  retirement  of  Dr.  Ruffner  would  be  a 
"calamity."  These  endorsements  should  have  carried  weight, 
as  the  Readjusters  had  come  into  power  largely  because  of  their 
advocacy  of  better  treatment  for  the  schools  and  were  now 
about  to  unite  formally  with  the  national  party  to  which  Gen- 
eral Armstrong  and  the  Commissioner  of  Education  belonged. 
But  General  William  Mahone,  the  strategist  of  the  Read- 
justers, was  forming  a  new  pofttical  machine,  and  Dr.  Ruffner's 
office  and  its  patronage  were  needed.14 


13  Pearson,  op.  ext.,  pp.  87,  123. 

14  Heatwole,  op.  cit.,  p.  225,  :s  curiously  wrong  in  his  facts.  I  am  indebted  to 
him,  however,  for  the  clearness  with  which  he  points  cut  the  importance  of  the 
contest. 


/ 

r 


■ 

24  The  South  Atlantic  Quarterly 

With  his  retirement  from  the  superintendency  Dr.  Ruff- 
ner's  constructive  work  came  to  an  end.  He  had  seen  his  peo- 
ple's needs  with  a  clear  eye,  and  in  universal  public  education 
he  had  discerned  the  best  way  of  meeting  those,  needs.  Time 
has  proven  his  vision  correct.  To  him  had  been  entrusted,  the 
creation  of  the  school  system :  contemporaries  approved  his. 
work  and  the  succeeding  generation  only  increased  the  super- 
structure. Without  the  gifts  that  make  men  popular,  he. had 
been  able  to  undermine  dema'gogues  as  well  as  reactionaries  and 
make  his  work  so  popular  that  the  schocls  survived  when 
weaker  and  less  disinterested  hands  assumed  their;  direction. 
The  solution  of  the  negro's  primary  problem  he  had  seen  to 
lie  in  education  of  the  Hampton  type  ;  the  solution 1  which  he 
advocated  for  the  problem  of  race  relations  anticipated  that  of 
Hampton's  most  famous  alumnus.  To  what  extent  he  had  in- 
fluenced northern  attitude  toward  the  South  we  can  not  tell ; 
but  it  seems  worthy  of  record  that  he  had  been  a  pioneer  among 
southern  educators  in  meeting  northern  educators  and  philan- 
thropists on  a  footing  of- mutual  respect.  j. 

After  a  brief  period  as  first  president  of  the  State  Female 
Normal  School,  he  devoted  his  working  time  to  geology  and 
historical  writing,  with  headquarters  at  Asheville,  N.  C.  But 
when  leaders  of  the  coming  educational  renaissance  in  Virginia 
turned  to  him  fo^  advice,  they  found  his  vision  still  clear  and 
his  interest  unabated.  Through  them  the  educational  states- 
man of  Reconstruction  days  projected  himself  into  the  new 
century. 

V  o\ 


